This case was between Respondents of the Hazelwood District High School who were student staff members of the school newspaper “Spectrum” and the officials of the Hazelwood School District. On May 10, 1983, Principal Reynolds stated that he would censor two pages of the school newspaper, which contained articles of teen pregnancy and the impact of divorce on students. The newspaper was written by a journalism class at the high school. The proofs were presented to Reynolds for approval.
Reynolds denied the pregnancy article because it contained the stories of three teens and he thought that they could have been identified from the text, even though no names were mentioned. The pregnancy article also included references to sexual activity and birth control, which Reynolds thought was inappropriate for the younger students. Reynolds objected to the divorce article because names were included (even though in the final draft they wouldn’t be) and he thought that the parents should have a chance to respond to the remarks made.
Ultimately, Reynolds was protecting students’ and parents’ rights to privacy. The School district was also protecting the tenth amendment, which states that any power not given to the federal government in the constitution is reserved for the states. The State has the power to provide education, so the School District believed that they could control what student’s could and could not do so long as it was based on the education and curriculum provided.
However, the student’s thought that their right to free speech and press was being violated. That believed that they had the right to post information about those topics and express their ideas and perspectives. Also, according the Bill of Rights, everyone is protected equally by the law, and the student’s thought that the school couldn’t prohibit their right to free speech because of this.
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Hazelwood School District. The case went to the District Court and the Court of Appeals and they both ruled in favor of the School.
The majority was in favor of the Hazelwood District, with 5 votes for and 3 against. Majority View:
The right to free speech of students in public school is not automatically same and equal in accordance with the law because of the school environment and because student speech needs to be in line with the school’s basic educational mission
The school newspaper is not a forum of public expression because it is not intended for the general public nor can the general public contribute
Educators do not violate the first amendment by exercising control over the style and content of speech, so long as it is reasonable
The school principal acted in a reasonable manner
Dissenting View:
The right to free speech and press was violated
Students should receive the same freedom of speech and press rights as adults (equal protection under the law); if the government can’t censor content posted outside the academic setting, then the school shouldn’t be able to censor student’s content in the academic setting
Although the incident took place on the 10th of May in 1983, the Supreme Court argued the case on October 13, 1987 and it was decided on January 13th, 1988.
This case was between Respondents of the Hazelwood District High School who were student staff members of the school newspaper “Spectrum” and the officials of the Hazelwood School District. On May 10, 1983, Principal Reynolds stated that he would censor two pages of the school newspaper, which contained articles of teen pregnancy and the impact of divorce on students. The newspaper was written by a journalism class at the high school. The proofs were presented to Reynolds for approval.
Reynolds denied the pregnancy article because it contained the stories of three teens and he thought that they could have been identified from the text, even though no names were mentioned. The pregnancy article also included references to sexual activity and birth control, which Reynolds thought was inappropriate for the younger students. Reynolds objected to the divorce article because names were included (even though in the final draft they wouldn’t be) and he thought that the parents should have a chance to respond to the remarks made.
Ultimately, Reynolds was protecting students’ and parents’ rights to privacy. The School district was also protecting the tenth amendment, which states that any power not given to the federal government in the constitution is reserved for the states. The State has the power to provide education, so the School District believed that they could control what student’s could and could not do so long as it was based on the education and curriculum provided.
However, the student’s thought that their right to free speech and press was being violated. That believed that they had the right to post information about those topics and express their ideas and perspectives. Also, according the Bill of Rights, everyone is protected equally by the law, and the student’s thought that the school couldn’t prohibit their right to free speech because of this.
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Hazelwood School District. The case went to the District Court and the Court of Appeals and they both ruled in favor of the School.
The majority was in favor of the Hazelwood District, with 5 votes for and 3 against.
Majority View:
Dissenting View:
Although the incident took place on the 10th of May in 1983, the Supreme Court argued the case on October 13, 1987 and it was decided on January 13th, 1988.